Flynn v PPK Mining Equipment Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 851

Security for costs should not be ordered against the second plaintiff because there is complete overlap between the claims of the individual and corporate plaintiffs, no realistic prospect of a different costs order being made solely against the corporation, and the individual plaintiff is solvent and liable for costs.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 10 July 2019
Procedural Posture: Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Determination
Outcome: Defendants' amended notice of motion for security for costs is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics: ['security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'impecunious Plaintiff' 'overlap of Claims Between Plaintiffs' 'quantum of Security']

['equity' 'commercial Law'] ['security for Costs' 'costs Orders' 'impecunious Plaintiff' 'overlap of Claims Between Plaintiffs' 'quantum of Security']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Security for Costs / Interlocutory Application Determination

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the second plaintiff, a corporation, should be ordered to provide security for costs when an individual co-plaintiff is solvent and within the jurisdiction' 'Whether there is a risk of different costs orders being made with respect to different plaintiffs' 'What quantum of security (if any) is appropriate']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Defendants' amended notice of motion for security for costs is dismissed with costs.

Orders

["The defendants' amended notice of motion filed on 5 July 2019 is dismissed with costs."]